dailykos.com — Over the last few days we've been hearing non-stop about how the Obama Administration is conducting a "War On Religious Freedom" by requiring employers, including religiously owned hospitals and schools, to produce health care plans that offer contraception without co-pays. Oh, heaven forfend - how could he? Yes, that's right - our Religious Leaders Demand the Right not to offer health insurance plans that provide Plan B as easily as they provide Viagra.
Feb 11, 2012 View in Crawl 4
mlw4428Feb 12, 2012
Well this is all a non-issue now. Obama has came up with a good and fair compromise: Insurance companies just reach out to women directly and bypass the religious bulls**t. Then it's between a woman, her doctor, her insurance company, and her god. No need to bring clergy into the equation.
Goddamn that sounds good, doesn't it? You Repukes oughta be going for this one, right? Insurance companies like it, women like it, what is there to not like?
mortventFeb 12, 2012
it was never about paying, it was about easier access to birth control
eraptorFeb 13, 2012
This is SO true.
It explains why Catholic bishops and Social Conservatives, like Rick Santorum, keep trying to use "religious freedom" as a means of forcing their particular religious/social views on the vast majority of the country which does NOT share them.
quisquisFeb 12, 2012
Sounds great. In fact, how about no employer has anything to do with any insurance.
It can always be between your doctor, insurance company and god.
Pay it all yourself. :)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Feb 12, 2012
That's fine and I say we increase regulations and decrease tax breaks. Bring companies back to where they should be, underneath the boot of the American public.
They're not people and we should quit treating them like they are.
quisquisFeb 12, 2012
Do you know why employers offer health insurance?
If not, you should look up the wage freezes in the depression that led to it; hopefully it will give you an idea of the unintended consequences of government interventionism.
Cheers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Feb 13, 2012
I suggest you look up why worker rights and fair worker compensation became an issue in the first place, child.
quisquisFeb 13, 2012
I'm entirely aware of the history of worker's rights in the united states. And again I point you to the unintended consequences [taxes and union dues... the only two things taken out of my check by mere virtue of getting one]
Do you get off trying to use red herrings like bringing up an age difference you think exists.
How about you address my argument on the merits, mkay?
mlw4428Feb 14, 2012
If you were having pay taken out by the union you were receiving fruits of their labor. You had the choice to go to a non-unionized shop....don't bitch because you wanted to leech off the work the union put in into making fair pay and benefits available to the employees.
I always laugh when people complain about union payments, but if an employee bitches about his wages or his benefits those SAME people just say "well find another job elsewhere." Well the same applies to all of the "ohhh the union charges me and i don't want to be in one"...f**king leave. There's other jobs, right? McDonald's is always hiring, isn't that what all the union haters (generally Republicans) are always saying?
eraptorFeb 13, 2012
@quisquis,
You just made the case for nationalized healthcare. While some of us don't have a problem pursuing that option for economic reasons, corporations aren't entitled to a free ride. They'll have to KEEP contributing to the nation's social infrastructure AND healthcare system REGARDLESS of the form it takes.
If that rubs some of them wrong, we'll be happy to revoke their business/market privileges. The country doesn't have to suffer the parasites corporations have become.
ferretmanFeb 13, 2012
@eraptor - Um, in *this* country there aren't such things as "business/market privileges". You make it sound like the government *allows* somebody to make and sell a thing or service.
Perhaps you're thinking of one of the nationalized bastions like Cuba or Venezuela? You seem like you'd be happier there.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorFeb 13, 2012
@ferret...Um...YES there are such thing as "business/market privileges" in the U.S.
While government grants those privileges, it is on behalf of society at large. Government serves as society's "representative". That's why politician's are referred to as "public servants" even though many of them ignore their fiduciary responsibilities (i.e., those who are corrupt).
Ever incorporated a business or applied for a business license? That exercise isn't meant for tax purposes ONLY! If a business loses it's business license, it loses the business privileges that go with it. By the same token, trade regulation once RESTRICTED foreign entities (i.e., multinational corporations) from accessing the U.S. market freely and that's why Conservatives deregulated it, gutting the U.S. market/economy in the process.
Where did you gather your civics/business law knowledge? A bubble gum wrapper?
mlw4428Feb 14, 2012
Careful now, you're using big workds like "it" and "is"...ferretman may not comprehend without Cookie Monster Language.
ano233Feb 12, 2012
"not to........provide Plan B as easily as they provide Viagra."
Of course, many religions use childbirth as a way to "bolster the numbers", especially smaller sects. Availability of contraception would slow their growth.
geejayeFeb 11, 2012
When you give Catholics power - they will wield that power over you.
There, fixed that sound bite for you, Santorum.
FTA: Finney (4:45): "If I'm a Jewish woman and I work at a Catholic institution, is it right for my employer - and I don't think of it as a business, but as an entity that gets a special tax status from the government - does that entity have the right to tell me I can't have access (to contraception?)."
97% of Catholic women use contraceptives- that's okay. Catholic University already has insurance with contraceptives - that's okay. 28 states already have this requirement - that's okay. The church is against the death penalty, but states still use it - that's okay.
But - heaven forbid that non-Catholic women- and 97% of the Catholic women - get contraceptives so they can have a healthy life and wanted children.
This is, Indeed, a Religious war on women
netantFeb 12, 2012
"If I'm a Jewish woman and I work at a Catholic institution, [...] does that entity have the right to tell me I can't have access (to contraception?"
If she was a Jewish woman who believed in America, the Constitution, and the truth, she'd understand that Church is not telling her she cannot have access to contraception. The Church is telling her they don't want to be forced by (health care) law to deliver it to her (contraception is not health care, it is an anti-pregnancy drug used for family planning)..
If she were a Jewish woman, and a smart one, she'd realize that no one is pointing a gun at her head saying she must work at a Catholic institution.
Obama is not at war with the Catholic church, and the Catholic church is not trying to pass law to prevent you from f**king "without consequences".
This is just the Demotard left using the same retarded logic as the Republitard right. A pox on all your houses!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
geejayeFeb 12, 2012
"she'd understand that Church is not telling her she cannot have access to contraception"
Yes, the church is most certainly dictating their religious morals. Our tax money goes to the "entity" she was talking about. So, the church takes OUR tax money and turns around and dictates what "morals" this Jewish woman should have.
Institutions being able to take our money and then use that money to dictate their religious morals is a precedent that we most certainly do NOT want to set.
Unless you are are comfortable with Muslims taking your tax money and using that money to enforce their interpretation of Sharia laws in their health care offerings.
netantFeb 12, 2012
As long as the Catholic church cannot be forced to participate in a practice they condemn on religious grounds, I will never have to worry about Muslims implementing Sharia law.
Separation of Church and State has to be applied to BOTH interest groups to "work". Your belief that society can stick it to a religious group when "its for the greater good" is what threatens every free thinker in this country.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mortventFeb 12, 2012
well you already provide it, through paying any insurance premiums and taxes.
the insurance companies that offer the service throw your payments into one big account and pay out of it to cover everything any of their clients need. Regardless if it's birth control, blood tests, or an enema
And your tax dollars go towards paying for federal health plans that already cover birth control..
so are you going to get an exemption on paying your taxes? Are the congressmen and senators going to drop their government health care plans? Nope, because the real issue was the church opposing easier access to birth control
GentlemanGhost542Feb 12, 2012
what some on the right don't get is that Freedom of Religion doesn't give them the ability to force their morals on others through what they cover in the person that works for thems health plan.
That person has a right to make that choice for themselves and not have another person or ogranization make the choice for them.
quisquisFeb 12, 2012
Is your point really "you're already forced to pay for something you find morally abhorrent, so it shouldn't it matter if you have to pay more."?!?
lol and there's at least 8 people who think that's a reasonable thing to say.
"Your tax dollars subsidize what you believe to be the deaths of millions of children every year, so why do you care if we use even more of your money for what you feel to be baby killing?"
ferretmanFeb 13, 2012
@geejaye - I'd love to see a cite in which taxpayer $$$ are going to church entities in some way besides basic charity or healthcare.
geejayeFeb 13, 2012
So - why would you take out charity and health care? It is tax payers money, one way or the other.
In 2009, more than 2/3rds (67%) of Catholic Charities' cash income came from government sources. That would be us, the tax payers, giving these entities money so they can inflict their "moral" codes on us.
http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=1924
What's next - giving our tax money to "charities" that stone women who get pregnant out of marriage (or who use birth control in marriage?) Or, if not stone, then force abortions on these "disgraced" women?
deomo899Feb 12, 2012
That's what makes this so pathetic. It is as though a human life is no longer valuable once they are born. They protect fetuses before they're born but once they come out, they don't give a damn anymore.
pinkfish411Feb 12, 2012
Catholic moral teaching is generally against the death penalty, critical of most recent wars, and supportive of things like just wages and the empowering of the working class (it gives no ringing endorsement of global capitalism, for sure).
The issue in this case is one of freedom of conscience/freedom of the free exercise of religion. It's about the freedom of the religious institutions not to be forced to materially participate in something they deem immoral.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mortventFeb 12, 2012
wrong, they already do provide materially.
In taxes that fund government health care plans (like the ones the senators and congressmen complaining about it have), and any insurance company that provides it puts the catholic fees into the same pot to pay for them..
It's a smokescreen about not wanting it easier for others to get them.
pinkfish411Feb 12, 2012
Sorry, but you're an idiot. Conspiracy theorists are idiots, and all this nonsense about Catholics and anyone else who opposes the birth control mandate really just wanting to stop women from being able to use birth control is really just a particularly stupid conspiracy theory.
I oppose it, and I have nothing against birth control (my wife uses it). I know many people who oppose it and have nothing wrong with birth control. Please address the issues and stop making yourself look like an idiot by trying to tell us what our "real" motivations are.
Having to buy the plan yourself is a more direct participation in the act and one that naturally raises more eyebrows.
But hey, if you want to say that paying taxes is the same as material participation in the act, then that would suggest that the whole "if you don't agree with it, don't use it" argument for things like abortion are bulls**t. Tax money goes to pay for things (like Planned Parenthood) that offer abortions, so I guess telling people that they don't have to have an abortion if they don't agree no longer makes sense now, does it?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mtownFeb 12, 2012
IMO it should read, "when you give bad Catholics power..."
Good Catholics don't force crap down other people's throats or through legislation.
neotechniFeb 12, 2012
"Good Catholics "
Oxymoron.
user500Feb 12, 2012
I guess priest aren't good Catholics given they like forcing appendages down the throats (and other openings) of little boys.
barackalypseFeb 12, 2012
And why exactly is it Catholics should be paying for someone elses birth control again? If you want birth control, pay for it or get insurance that provides it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TheMightyZordonFeb 12, 2012
Pay no attention to this blithering idiot (barackalypse) who didn't even bother to read the article or the 'excerpt' from it at the top of this page.
user500Feb 12, 2012
why should I pay for the healthcare of Republicans or Christians? If they get sick its not my problem and if they die all the better.
barackalypseFeb 12, 2012
That's the point, you shouldn't have to. You should be free to get whatever insurance you want, covering whomever and whatever procedures it covers, or forgo it entirely.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
phpistastyFeb 12, 2012
Yes, birth control must be used against their religious freedom, and they're not up in arms about jehovah's witnesses having to cover blood tests. Religious freedom, as long as its my religion eh?
crashdvisFeb 12, 2012
Can you name some big Jehova's Witness hospitals where hundreds of people work? Can you name that big Jehova's Witness insurance company? I didn't think so. You of course don't understand the argument at all.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
phpistastyFeb 12, 2012
Oh man, the logic destroys me. You're right, we should trample and ignore the rights of the few and only support the rights of our chosen religion.
I was just posing an example of a situation that the same mindset can apply to with a different result.
The argument seems to be that employers feel that providing insurance that covers contraception is forcing them to fund services that they feel are against their religion.
Here's another example. I am creating a religion that feels that medical care is immoral. Now what?
The whole argument is just an attempt to create a wedge for team red, but the miscalculation is that Americans generally feel contraception is bad.
ano233Feb 12, 2012
"I am creating a religion that feels that medical care is immoral."
You don't have to, there are already quite a few of those. There's been multiple news stories in the last decade where parents have allowed their children to die despite viable medical treatments because they believed "the power of god" would save their children.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1877352,00.html
anomaly100Feb 11, 2012
Go to war with women and we can go total Lysistrata on the men.
barackalypseFeb 12, 2012
</Satire>
We've planned for this eventually. Why do you think the Internet really exists? Its a doomsday vault of pornography and we've squirreled away enough co-ed's and cheerleaders to last us until we bring the sex bot into existence. Then with our Roomba's, sex bots, scrubbing bubbles shower and toilet cleaners and TV dinners, we'll have no further use of your treacherous lot. =)
Also, current sperm supplies aren't sufficient to produce all the babies 30 something women feeling their biological clocks winding down want.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Feb 12, 2012
Would you guys still cook?
TheMightyZordonFeb 12, 2012
We guys would probably starve to death :P
sly7765Feb 12, 2012
Good article. It's crazy that in this day and age some people still think we should all live like the Duggars. We are broke as a nation and some important natural resources are scheduled to run out in our lifetime. We need less people, period.
user500Feb 12, 2012
Duggars = Terrorist
ferretmanFeb 13, 2012
@sly - I notice that the folks who say things like "we need less people, period" aren't exactly volunteering to lead the way here....
laurahoustonFeb 11, 2012
looks like most religions go hard on their woman and children.
I don't think they will ever trust their woman again to have the personal choice of eating the forbidden fruit.
bluenose2Feb 11, 2012
That is the whole point of religion. Suppression and control.
crashdvisFeb 12, 2012
Then don't join the religion. It's not that hard to get. I don't like religion and I'm an atheist. I don't run around telling them how to run their religions. There is religious freedom in this country. That includes me the atheist and all other religions.
bluenose2Feb 12, 2012
On that sir, we can agree.
TheMightyZordonFeb 12, 2012
The problem is when this very same religion goes out and tries to dictate national/state policy by telling LIES and BULLs**t to people. Then we don't have any choice but to tell them to f**k off . . , and to stop buggering altar boys as well, perhaps.
benjie25Feb 12, 2012
I thought religion was about a non-scientific way to track the seasons and pass on "knowledge". Kind of obsolete.
ferretmanFeb 13, 2012
@blue - You KNOW that's not true if you have any knowledge of other religions around the world.
More properly stated the aspects of suppression and control stem from the more authoritarian religions, where only "certain people" get to talk to God/interpret commandments/decipher religious texts. Most (not all) Christian-based religions have tended to head down this road, in part for historical reasons (you needed command and control to keep civilization alive in the Dark Ages) and in part due to greed for power.
Several religions around the world are considerably more open and (if you will) "crowd sourced". I'd say that most European pagan and various Eastern religions meet the more open criteria.
Curiously enough, many of the very the folks who decry the "suppression and control" of authoritarian religions seem to be okay with that precise same level of suppression and control from authoritarian governments.
breadfredFeb 12, 2012
You can eat my fruit any day.
Sorry....
salbatrossFeb 12, 2012
The fundamentalist* war on women
geejayeFeb 12, 2012
You got that right...
miklkitFeb 11, 2012
Ah, religion. A bunch of old supposedly celibate men who think women are just animals. You know, mere property.
deomo899Feb 12, 2012
Celibate? We all know that way too many priests have been messing with the alter boys here and there. Didn't they just have a huge settlement over this just a few years ago?
pinkfish411Feb 12, 2012
So married priests aren't part of "religion"? Female pastors aren't part of "religion"?
xx4001Feb 11, 2012
War on women more like war on paying taxes.
benjie25Feb 12, 2012
Contraceptives reduce taxes by reducing children born in poverty.
deomo899Feb 12, 2012
That means less tax paying dollars on social programs and less money being spent on potential future prisoners.
mksmothersFeb 14, 2012
Since paying taxes is so morale, you should pay mine.
whacklyFeb 13, 2012
can anyone disagree, no matter how stupid the opposition's opinions and motivations might be, without calling it a war anymore? in war don't people, you know, die horribly from purposely targeted violence?
mksmothersFeb 12, 2012
I'm not a fan of religion, but I think we are missing a huge point. Why does the government have the right to tel ANY organization that they must provide birth control without a co-pay? No one has an inherent right to the funds of their employer. No one has an intrinsic right to be able to get birth control without a copay.
ferretmanFeb 13, 2012
Well said.
jphrFeb 12, 2012
World will become a better place once these religious inclinations have found their place in the DSM IV.
thecentristwordApr 11, 2012
You think the War on Women is fake? Check out our guide - http://thecentristword.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/a-quick-guide-to-the-gops-war-on-women/
reverantFeb 14, 2012
No such thing - unless maybe you're talking about Islam
Cleap1Feb 13, 2012
The real world is that people making insurance decisions in companies are far right as a whole. Other people decided for you unless the government supports good coverage.
quisquisFeb 12, 2012
Can you get Viagra without a co-pay? (Hint: No)
So the daily kos is lying straight off the lede... big surprise.
TaliscatFeb 12, 2012
depends on the insurance carrier plan.
I know I have to pay a copay on my dental cleanups, but many get them free.
barackalypseFeb 12, 2012
"does that entity have the right to tell me I can't have access (to contraception)."
Of course it does, the First Amendment protects its free speech rights allowing it you tell you nearly anything that isn't a threat or libelous. =)
Oh, what's that? You didn't really mean "tell", did you, what you meant to say was does it have the right not to pay for your contraception? And yes, it does have the right not to pay, though absent an exemption it would require it to just stop providing insurance plans (or another option eliminate all paid positions).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mortventFeb 12, 2012
well the only way you can avoid paying for birth control, is to stop paying taxes... or have any health insurance yourself.
both result in money going towards birth control.
In state/federal plans that include it, and because insurance companies include all payments in one pot to pay out of
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2012
Catholics are stupid proof below
http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/2011/10/babylon-great.html
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-knjaaVAX_rk/Tp2mKRZDu9I/AAAAAAAAADg/OPgobaRfgcE/s1600/2_1.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JQO89RwSVpU/Tp2mQlJmtxI/AAAAAAAAADo/vjrT5VxGCrs/s1600/2_2.jpg
http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/2012/01/crop-circle_20.html
=
http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/2011/12/111.html
=
http://thoughtsandprobabilities.blogspot.com/2010/08/alex-grey-cosm.html
they want 3 things from you 1. gnosis 2. baby 3. contribution
watch this series http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/2012/01/golden-compass-series.html
your inside a computer
http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/2011/08/return-to-source-philosophy-matrix.html
http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/2011/08/hard-problem-science-behind-fiction.html
http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/2011/12/crabwood-message_6300.html
http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/2011/12/cosmic-history-chronicles.html
the past , present and future already exist
http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/2011/11/fabric-of-cosmos-what-is-space.html
see all pages here
http://separatedinmath.blogspot.com/
http://thoughtsandprobabilities.blogspot.com/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalyps2547Feb 12, 2012
Reported for blogspam
blueevil420Feb 12, 2012
To take from Finney's example of the Jewish woman; no one is denying her the right to contraception. They're merely attempting to exercise their OWN right to not subsidize contraception, if they choose not to. No one is preventing her from buying it with her own money, or from getting a different job that has those benefits. If I work at Wal-mart, (which I don't) and my benefits are not to my liking, I always have the option to find a different job, with different benefits.
So essentially, whenever someone religious, or a religious organization, decides not to buy or subsidize something against their own religion, it's horrific! But you don't see the internet up in arms over Wal-mart charging smokers more for their health insurance. Isn't not paying for the smoker's bad health as a result of their bad habit an infringement on his rights to smoke?
Nah, I think it's an organization choosing not to buy something, which is a legal right any person or corporation has.
Except the Churches, of course.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pinkfish411Feb 12, 2012
You're absolutely right, but the left-wing mob is too stupid to understand your point. They can't have an intelligent debate about it because they can't even understand what the debate is. All they can do is uncritically spew out this "war against women" bulls**t.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mortventFeb 12, 2012
they pay taxes = paying for federal/state health care plans including contraceptives
They pay for health insurance = covering contraceptives because the money goes into one pot to be used to cover customer claims
It's never been about paying, it's about forcing the rules of the Catholic church on others
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2012
dailykos and dumb f**k novenator embarrass themselves again. Some of the unborn babies (as about half of the country, including doctors, see it) are WOMEN. And pro-life people are trying to protect them from being killed.
Since when does war try to PROTECT the "enemy" from being killed?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
deomo899Feb 12, 2012
I don't even think any of these pro-life religious nuts even care about saving lives. They've got a secret agenda to control half of the human population by pushing their nut job beliefs on everybody.
mlw4428Feb 12, 2012
DP SHELL ACCOUNT! LOOK AT HIM RUN, RUN DP SHELL ACCOUNT, RUN!
TheMightyZordonFeb 12, 2012
Dumbf**k jberini embarrasses himself again! Look at him posting his retarded nonsense!
shyloveFeb 12, 2012
Yes but they succeeded in getting him to add more layers of complicaions to our lives, and impediment and to bow to them having a religious right to interfere in members and non-members freedom of medical procedures for their won beliefs, ehtics, and personal judgment... so what nexxt more hoop to jump through, sya if you aren't married and using contraception, abortion, or getting std treaments... mor hoops any goup might want to add for their employees to jump through in order to obtain their medical rights. That says their Gods hs told them so and they are the ones with special god receivership for the rest of us. Trust them they know whats best just like our President knows where all teh world WMD's are hidden and when we are in imminent threat of massive attacks by disarmed 3rd world countries.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
reginaperknsFeb 12, 2012
All insurace companies produce health plans that offer contraception in them. Since Obama care all insurance companies have gone up in their rates and now he wants them to not charge a co-pay. Many of the co-pays have gone up many companies have droped insurance carrier and are offering only two or three to choose from. Why does religion have to play into this ? " War On Religious Freedom" This is 2012 not the stone ages. This is the USA not the middle east.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
baddolphinFeb 12, 2012
The mean ugly **** that doesn't need birth control made her point very clear: Non-Catholics need not apply, and Jews had best get back in the oven.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.